HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980 10-01 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION
HELD WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 1, 1980, at 7:30 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Bill Lewis, James Bentley, Len Fernelius,
Helen McClelland, Mary McDonald, David Runyan
MEMBERS ABSENT: Del Johnson, Gordon Johnson
STAFF PRESENT: Gordon Hughes, City Planner; Joyce Repya, Secretary
1. Approval of the Minutes
Helen McClelland moved. approval of the minutes from September 3, 1980,
meeting. James Bentley seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried.
II. Old Business
Z-79-10 Braemar Associates. R-1 Single Family Dwelling to PRD -3
Planned Residential District.
Gordon Hughes reminded the Commission that in late 1979, the Commission
and City Council granted preliminary approval of this rezoning to PRD -3. This
development plan incorporates a portion of the property acquired by the City
for Delaney Boulevard.
Mr. Hughes cxpla:ned that the proponents rave rit:w returned with overall
development plans and are requesting final rezoning approval. As before, the
site plan illustrates 89 condominium units located in eight buildings which
represent an overall density of about 8.5 units per acre. Approximately two
enclosed parking spaces and .5 exposed parking spaces per unit are proposed.
The overall development plan also includes a grading plan, a concept
landscape plan, utility plan, unit plans, and elevation drawings. In addition,
the proponent has submitted a preliminary subdivision.
Mr. Hughes indicated that Staff believes that the proponents have
prepared an excellent development concept for the site. The plan preserves
the slopes and vegetation in the west central portion of the site and paroposes
a proper use of the wetland area in the east central portion of the site.
Staffs criticism of the plans relate primarily to the apparent need for
setback variances and the location of exposed parking areas. The PRD section
of the Zoning Ordinance requires a 35 foot setback for buildings and parking
from all property boundaries. The proposed plan violates this setback on all
four sides. Staff believes that building setback variances along Delaney Boule-
vard are reasonable due to the curvature of the street. However, Staff believes
that the two buildings along Cahill should be adjusted by providing smaller unit
sizes to meet the 35 foot setback. Similarly, the pool builidng should be adjusted
to meet this setback from the north boundary.
Community Development and Planning Commission
October 1, 1980
Page 2
Mr. Hughes stated that Staff is also concerned with the location of
exposed parking. The two parking areas along Delaney Boulevard are located
enitrely within the setback area. Also, the driveway entrances to these parking
areas exhibit poor site distances for Delaney traffic. Likewise, the parking
area on the east side is within the setback area and abuts Cahill Road. It
should be noted that this parking area was not shown on the preliminary plan.
In addition to those concerns, Mr. Hughes added that a "concept"
landscape plan has been submitted. The ordinance requires a detailed landscape
plan and plant schedule. Staff agrees that it is difficult to prepare such a
detailed plan with this site due to the abundance of existing vegetation which
may be preserved. However, a more detailed plan should be prepared prior
to final approval by the Council. Also, the exterior materials on all buildings
should be noted on the plan.
Therefore, Mr. Hughes said that Staff recommends overall plan approval
with the understanding that the noted features should be modified. Approval
is conditioned on final platting and subdivision dedication.
Mr. Jack Barron, the proponent, advised the Commission that the dev-
elopment would be built in phases with an attempt to preserve as much natural
vegetation as possible. He added that the units will be big, different, well
designed and afford the buyers freedom of redesigning their own units.
In response to Mr. Fernelius's inquiry about the parking needs on the
east side of the development, Mr. Barron explained that the parking on the
east side facing Cahill Road will be below grade, cedar walled and should not
be offensive to anyone.
Helen McClelland expressed concern about the poor sight distance of
the northerly parking lot. She noted appreciation of the developer's problem
with locating the parking lot in such a way that people would not have to walk
completely around the building to enter it. Mr. Barron explained that the owners
would park underground and that the exposed parking was planned to serve
guests to the building. He noted that it might be possible to move the parking
lot further north, which would eliminate a curb cut by utilizing the entrance
road.
In response to Mr. Runyan's concern about the variance requests for the
parking to be heard by the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, Mr. Hughes
informed the Commission that typically the Board of Appeals is approached for
variance requests prior to final Council action. Due to the land negotiations
between Mr. Barron and the City, the project had been in limbo for a while.
For those reasons, when this item goes before Council for final zoning, staff will
see the Board of Appeals action and execution of the final purchase agreement
all at once
Mr. Len Fernelius moved for preliminary plat and overall plan approval of
the Braemar Associates development subject to satisfactory negotiations on the
parking in the northwest corner and the submission of the landscape plan.
David Runyan seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried.
Community Development and Planning Commission
October 1, 1980
Page 3
III. New Business
S-80-14 Lois 7th Addition. Generally located west of County Road
No. 18 and south of County Road No. 39.
Mr. Hughes informed the Commission that the subject property measures
about 41,500 square feet in area. It is currently zoned PID Planned Industrual
District. The proponent requests a one lot, one block plat of the property to
clarify cumbersome legal descriptions.
Much of this property was purchased as surplus road right of way from
the County several years ago. Very recently, the County advised Staff that
additional right of way is now needed from this property. This is apparently
necessary to realign County Roan No. 39 to the south of its present location.
Approximately 9,500 square feet of this property would be needed for this
right of way.
Mr. Hughes stated that Staff has encouraged the platting of this property
to clarify legal descriptions. It must be stressed, he added, that his property
is currently zoned PID. The platting is not required to obtain a building permit
for this parcel. It will be necessary to obtain variances for this parcel because
it is below the required two acre minimum lot size.
Mr. Hughes indicated that he believed it would be very difficult to require
the requested right of wav dedication in conjunction with this plat. He had advised
the proponent of the ;,ccd ;v; ;-;ght of way and inotcu that the proponent is opposed
to its dedication in that it represents about one fourth of his property. Further-
more, the proponent acquired this property from the County with the presumption
that the County would not then require additional right of way dedications (the
property was in fact surplus right of way.) Staff believes that this was a
reasonable presumption.
Therefore, Staff recommends that the City advise the County and the
City of Eden Prairie to proceed immediately with the acquisition of the necessary
right of way. Such an acquisition should be undertaken prior to completion of
the platting procedure.
Mr. Paulsen, the proponent explained to the Commission that he was
requesting a replat of the property to clarify the cumbersome legal descriptions.
He said that the first he had heard about the County wanting an easement dedication
was when City Staff notified him. He added that he still has heard nothing from
the County, but has no intention of giving them a portion of his property which
he had previously bought from them.
Discussion ensued regarding the repercussions which could evolve if
the plat is approved.
Helen McClelland moved approval of the plat. Mary McDonald seconded
the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried.
Community Development and Planning Commission
October 1, 1980
Page 4
S-80-15 R.L.S. for Lots 9 and 10 Dewey Hill. Generally located
south of Shannon Circle.
Mr. Hughes explained to the Commission that the proponents are re-.
question approval of a Registered Land Survey to realign the common lot line
between the two developed single family lots in Dewey Hill. This is necessi-
tated due to driveway encroachment from Lot 10 on a small part of Lot 9.
Setback requirements for both dwellings continue to be met.
Mr. Hughes concluded that Staff recommends approval.
Mr. Len Fernelius moved approval of the R.L.S.. James Bentley seconded
the motion. All voted aye; the motion carried.
Z-80-5 Evans Meineke. R-1 to R-2 Family Dwelling District.
Lot 2, Block 2, Warden Acres Peterson Replat. Generally
located south of Grove Street and west of the M.N.S. Railroad.
Mr. Hughes reminded the Commission that one year ago the Commission
and the Council approved a subdivision entitled "Warden Acres Peterson Replat" .
At that time, the proponent requested a rezoning of one of the lots in the sub-
division to R-2 Two Famiiv Dwelling District. i.e ;M ;MIJTTed the X9.1:.5. Rail-
way. Other lots abutting the railway had been similarly zoned on previous
occasions.
The Commission reviewed the request on two occasions. On the first
occasion, the Commission recommended denial of the rezoning, but on the
second occasion, the Commission recommended approval. Ultimately, the City
Council unanimously denied the requested rezoning to R-2 (the subdivision
however was approved).
Mr. Hughes stated that the proponent has now petiitoned again for a
rezoning to R-2 for the lot abutting the railway. In his petition, the proponent
cites that 1) buyers are not interested in constructing a single family dwelling
on this lot and 2) the location of the lot warrants an R-2 zoning.
Mr. Hughes concluded Staff recommended approval of this request in 1979
and continues to recommend approval. He also re -iterated the fact that the Council
unanimously denied this request one year ago and if the proponent chooses to
gain the Council's approval, he must illustrate new facts and circumstances re-
garding his request.
Mr. Meineke, the proponent presented photographs and a layout plan of
the site to the Commission. He noted the improvements he had made to the house
in the past year and indicated that he plans to build a double bungalow on the lot.
Ms. McClelland advised the Commission that two of Mr. Meineke's
neighbors were unable to attend the meeting; the Bassards and the Stevensons.
Those neighbors had indicated to Ms. McClelland that they were unhappy with
the way in which the lot had been developed and asked that it be expressed that
they were originally` against the rezoning and continue to be against it.
Community Developement and Planning Commission
October 1, 1980
Page 5
Mr. Bob Ryder, a neighbor of Mr. Meineke's noted his objection to the
rezoning of the lot to R-2. He added that Mr. Meineke has not improved the
land, but has stripped it of all vegetation. He also indicated that with the R-2
zoning change the traffic on the street would be greatly increased.
Mr. Ryder further voiced concern about the wooded property across
Grove Street which is owned by Bermel Smaby and zoned R-1 possibly being
zoned R-2 and adding to a snowball affect in which the neighborhood could
eventually be full of R-2 lots.
Mr. Lewis stated that he disagreed with Mr. Ryder because the subject
property possesses unique problems from any other lot in the area, and should
be considered accordingly. Mr. Runyan added that he could see a valid argument
for the undesirabliity of a single family dwelling on the subject lot due to the
railroad tracks and the power lines.
Ms. McClelland stated that she could not see the necessity to increase
the density on the street with a double bungalow. She added that Mr. Meineke
has shown that he can build a double, but he is backed up right to the power line
to meet the setback.
Mr. Fernelius stated that he felt a man has a right to develop his own
property and the plans are not that objectionable. He then moved approval of the
rezoning to R-2 Two Family Dwelling District. James Bentley seconded the motion.
The following voted: Aye: James Bentley, Len Fernelius, Mary McDonald, David
Runyan and Bill Lewis; Nay; Helen !McClelland; +hc ...ct:... _..r:-ied.
IV. Next Meeting Date: October 29, 1980, at 7:30 p.m.
V. Adjournment: 8:23 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
947�
Joyce Repya, Secretary